Still Hope for Farscape

An anonymous reader wrote in to say that the "Save Farscape" campaign thinks there is still hope. If the next 11 episodes (starting Friday, January 10 on the SciFi Channel) pull the right numbers ). According to this interview with David Kemper:"If we were to do 2s, straight across the boards for these eleven eps, I would be expecting to have phone conversations with people immediately..." Of course that is pretty unlikely- but my household won't miss an episode. To bad the cats don't count in the nielsons ;)

Comments

ZIP?

[Roadmaster]

is the kemper interview long enough that they just *HAD* to put it in a zip file? or is it yet another ploy to counter the slashdot effect?

Re:Why save it?

[clutch110]

So on the same token, should we stop going to plays or operas and live life to the fullest?

Isn't this the same thing, one person or group of people showing their creative vision to the world?

I agree, most of television is crap, but to disregard it on the whole is a mistake.

Nielsen

[CySurflex]

Nielsen ratings only apply to nielsen households which is a small percentage of the american public. If your TiVo or your cable set-top box was allowed to send back viewing habits info to the cable provider, the media companies would have much better numbers to go by.

I never understood why people always get so riled up by that prospect.

Re:Nielsen

[SirWhoopass]

I don't know how keen I am on having every ad agency in the country know my viewing habits, but you are right. The Nielsen rating only apply to a very small number of households. I would bet a lot of groups are underrepresented. How many single college kids living in apartments/dorms do you know with Nielsen boxes?

It would be interesting to see what happened if you could suddenly get viewing data from all those TiVos, digital cable boxes, and satellites out there. It might be like when album sales became directly tied to the sales register instead of clerk reporting. It was discovered that country music accounted for far more sales than was credited.

Re:Nielsen

[msobkow]

Personally I don't care what ad companies target a show -- I fast forward through the crap unless it catches my interest anyhow.

Here's a hint for the advertisers: make it amusing. I'll actually watch an amusing ad, even if I have no interest in the product. IBM, Blockbuster, and a few others seem to have grasped that; corps like GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc. are still under the misguided belief that their ads have anything to do with which vehicle I end up buying.

Re:Nielsen

[JordoCrouse]

I don't know how keen I am on having every ad agency in the country know my viewing habits, but you are right.

I don't know how much I care about that. In my opinion, if they are going to broadcast an ad anyway, they might as well use something that appeals me as well as something applicable to my life situation (hint: more beer commercials, less tampon commercials).

I have yet to hear a compelling argument why targeted advertising is so bad, but if anyone out there wants to give it a shot, I'm all ears...

Re:Nielsen

[swillden]

If your TiVo or your cable set-top box was allowed to send back viewing habits info to the cable provider, the media companies would have much better numbers to go by.

Not likely.

Although I don't really know a lot about how many homes are used or how they're selected, I would be very surprised if the Nielsen system either has (a) too few homes for a highly reliable sample (it only takes a few thousand) or (b) a poorly-selected sample. Why? Because it's so easy to do it right, and so many people know how to do it right, that it just makes no sense to screw it up. If Nielsen weren't using statistical "best practices" (or close to it), there would be an opening for a competitor to come in and beat them by providing better data.

Were Nielsen to start including all Tivo users in their sample, they'd degrade their numbers, not improve them because Tivo users are not a representative sample of the TV-watching public. They are probably an extremely good sample of the TV-obsessed couch potato demographic, though ;-)

Re:Nielsen

[micromoog]

Nielsen is a highly respected data-collection agency. They have very rigid standards regarding their statistical methods, to the point where their margin of error is something like 2-3%. They take extreme care in getting a fair sample of the population.

Your method would be unscientific, with an overrepresentation of TiVo and cable customers. And Farscape would still suck.

Re:Nielsen

[skeedlelee]

You mention amusing adds and all I can think of is that old add (ran during the superbowl I think) where they fired gerbils or some rodent things out of a cannon into a wall with the company name on it. I can never remember the name, but the image of rodents smacking a wall, falling to the ground, shaking a bit then walking a way left an impression. Really no clue what they were selling though.

Re:Nielsen

[swillden]

Television pisses me off because more likely than not you're already paying for the video feed with an overpriced cable or satalite bill, yet they feel the need to tack on extra means of income by trying to force you to watch commercials that most likely you don't give a shit about.

Those are separate. The money you pay to get the signal goes to support the distribution network. The bulk of the advertising revenue goes to support the production of the shows.

Of course, a profit margin exists in both revenue streams, but, hey, the bills have to get paid.

If you are really that bothered by commercials, you have other options. You can buy all of the material you watch (DVDs, etc.); you might be able to find someone to sell you commercial-free material (you can definitely get commercial-free music); you can opt out and not watch; or you can flip channels/stations (essentially freeloading, although as in many circumstances, freeloading requires a lot more effort than paying). Really, there's no reason to get pissed off here, no one's forcing you to do anything. Decide what you want, decide what you're willing to pay, and figure out what falls in the intersection of those sets. If A /intersect B = {}, so be it. Try going outside.

In my case, I don't care about commercials all that much, but I can't get free TV (not legally, anyway; my brother-in-law is an AT&T broadband installer, and would hook me up for free, but I'm not into that) and it's just not worth paying for, so we don't watch TV.

Re:Nielsen

[Hott of the World]

Outpost.com! Just think of them as the Amazon that everyone forgot.

Re:Nielsen

[Gaijin42]

They wont use tivo ratings until everyone has a tivo. Tivo users are a self selecting group, high income, and geeky. Thats great, if you are marketing to high income geeks (So SciFi would love those numbers)

However, High income geeks are not the average household on there, and that is what the nielsons are trying to measure. The nielsons numbers would be worthless if they didnt base them off of a random sample

Re:Nielsen

[marekk]

This is completely false. While Nielsen households are not a completely random sample of the viewing audience, they are accurate enough to represent the viewership audience per show within an acceptable margin of error. Random sampling/surveys are a scientifically sound method of obtaining an overview of the whole.

If the Nielsen ratings weren't accurate, stations, broadcasters, advertisers, etc would be screaming for a more accurate viewership measuring system. The accuracy of the Nielsen ratings is essential to the surviability of the NielsenMedia company. If the people that studied these ratings (advertisers, execs) didn't feel they were accurate, they would be looking for a new parter to monitor ratings.

Re:Nielsen

[SirWhoopass]

The targeted advertising itself? No real problems. It's the information that they use to target you. Do you really want the world to know you watch 25 hours of Jerry Springer a month? What if your health insurance company bought that information and decided you watch too much TV, so they're increasing your rates?

I don't actually think this would happen any time soon, but it's the other side of the equation.

Re:Nielsen

[/dev/trash]

don't you mean Fry's?

Re:Nielsen

[Miguelito]

I'll probably regret asking this, but how the hell does owning a Tivo put one in the elitist category? Sure, they're not dirt cheap, but not everyone that owns one is filthy rich or a computer geek.

Hell, I'd think even if it were nothing but elitists, it'd balance out ratings more as the current crop of ratings seems to only account for complete morons with no brains.

Re:Nielsen

[stefanlasiewski]

If your TiVo or your cable set-top box was allowed to send back viewing habits info to the cable provider, the media companies would have much better numbers to go by.

I'd like to see the demographic of TiVo owners first. From my perspective, Tivo owners are mostly wealthy geeks.

Re:Nielsen

[Erasmus Darwin]

Here are the details on Neilsen's Tivo usage: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/05/184423 0&mode=thread&tid=129

It seems to only be for households that they already have an agreement with.

Re:Nielsen

[LMariachi]

If the people that studied these ratings (advertisers, execs) didn't feel they were accurate, they would be looking for a new parter to monitor ratings.

Right, and we should trust them on that, because TV and advertising executives are renowned for their analytical acumen.

Re:Nielsen

[watchful.babbler]

However, the precision drops as the number of viewers of a given show decreases. So, small enough viewership == large variance in precision. Not to mention that the Nielsen ratings depend heavily on pollee honesty.

Re:Nielsen

[mpe]

I have yet to hear a compelling argument why targeted advertising is so bad, but if anyone out there wants to give it a shot, I'm all ears...

The problem is that attempts at targeting advertising so far have involved using poor algorithms on questionable data. Hence the results don't tend to target very well, with a big risk of offending viewers.

Re:Nielsen

[mpe]

Those are separate. The money you pay to get the signal goes to support the distribution network. The bulk of the advertising revenue goes to support the production of the shows.

The advertising revenue goes to the broadcaster whilst quite a bit may then go to the production company it's certainly not a direct route.

Re:Nielsen

[Rogerborg]

You're assuming that when a high earner says "no" that they don't keep trying people in the same demographic until one of them says "yes". If they had a disproportionate number of respondants in trailer parks, don't you think the advertisers might get a bit miffed?

Re:Nielsen

[Sacarino]

Some of us actually use our trucks for what they were designed for, hauling stuff around. I move a lot of mulch and gravel and whatnot when working on my yard. Now, granted, i've never needed to have my shocks tested via a crane drop - that's just silly advertising, i think.

I totally agree with your point about taking your shiny new SUV offroad.... that "luxury ride" suspension and steering aren't going to be worth a damn after treating it the way you would a Jeep.

Re:Nielsen

[swillden]

The point is that your cable or satellite payment isn't enough to pay for both distribution and content, so the other poster's theory that he's being screwed twice is silly.

Re:Nielsen

[zerocool^]

While Nielsen households are not a completely random sample of the viewing audience, they are accurate enough to represent the viewership audience per show within an acceptable margin of error.

Most of us call "acceptable margin of error" College Students.

You think I'm kidding. How many college students are there in the US? They ALL watch TV. I've never even heard of a college kid with a neilson box. It doesn't happen. They say our tastes are too eclectic. What they don't realize is that, while we don't have all the money in the world, most of us are very impressionable, and would respond to targeted advertising.

Neilson ratings are why shows like Farscape and The Family Guy get the axe. Everyone assumes no one watches them because sophisticated baby boomers and pretentious 30-somethings don't watch cheezy-looking sci-fi channel shows or raunchy cartoons on fox. But I'm not above potty humor, and I'm certainly not above looking through the non-star-trek-budget cast and set to see the genious plotlines.

It's a lost cause. I hate to say it, and I'm still going to watch, but I think it's over.

~Wx

Re:Nielsen

[Winged Cat]

There are a lot of entrenched interests in keeping the status quo, even though everyone who has done honest analysis (which is a frighteningly small number of the decision makers) knows the stats are way inaccurate.

In truth, they market to the households that Nielsen measures, because Nielsen has brainwashed so many advertisers into believing only Nielsen numbers. Reality be damned.

Still Hope For BeOS

[Anonymous Coward]

An anonymous reader wrote in to say that the "Save BeOS" campaign thinks there is still hope. If the next 11 quarters (starting Friday, January 10 on the Palm Channel) pull the right numbers). According to this interview with David Kemper:"If we were to use NetPositive, straight across the Palm site, for these eleven quarters, I would be expecting to have phone conversations with people immediately..." Of course that is pretty unlikely- but my household won't miss a chance to resurrect BeOS. To bad the cats can't point and click ;)

Re:Still Hope For BeOS

[joe_bruin]

didn't you hear, beos is already saved. no money needed, but feel free to contribute code. in about a year, they'll be where Be was 3 years ago (which was pretty good, for 3 years ago). finally, a descent gui for my p2-266! now if they only had nfs. and a descent web browser. god knows they have enough irc clients.

yes, i'm offtopic. but i'd rather save beos than waste my time watching tv (and trying to save a tv show so i can waste more time watching tv).

Nielsens

[szcx]

Of course that is pretty unlikely- but my household won't miss an episode. To bad the cats don't count in the nielsons ;)

Unless you have a box, you count for about as much as your cats.

Farscape at its heart was good..

[Hott of the World]

But for the life of me I couldnt get past all the freakiness.

My 2 cents.

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[thelexx]

It was the freakiness that kept me coming back! ;)

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[Synn]

Every episode was like the characters had taken LSD.

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[Slashamatic]

From time to time, I thought that the writers had!

Re:Farscape at its heart was good..

[Slashamatic]

I disagree, it was freaky, but how else can you represent Harvey and his influence on Chrichton. However it was definitely good, and I guess the actors were having a lot of fun with the material as well.

Interesting show on cable (Trio)

[Microsift]

"Brilliant but Cancelled" described fan efforts to save cancelled shows, noting it is nearly impossible, once the final decision is made. They did cite one example of a show that was cancelled and brought back because of fan support, "Cagney and Lacy." The show was out of production and the actors and actresses had been released from their contracts, but they managed to get everyone back.

If Farscape is officially canceled, there's probably not much hope. One notable difference is that the shows featured on "Brilliant..." were all on one of the major networks, so Sci-Fi may play it differently.

Re:What about

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Why are people so fucking gung-ho about saving a TV show, yet wouldn't lift a finger to help another human being?

Because nearly all other human beings suck.

Next question?

Re:What about

[willith]

Hey, it's easier.

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

If you treat TV in a similar vain as say a play then I can see your point. However, most people just plop down in front of the tube and waste their life away.

Make TV a special event to be enjoyed socially with friends and strangers a like and then you'll have something. Until then, even the most creative content from TV can be better found somewhere else.

Re:What about

[Evil Adrian]

Especially those that don't care about what happens to other human beings.

Dont rely on viewer count machines

[nurb432]

Everyone still call/write si-fi after each episode and ask for more...

Be sure to mention content in each weeks show so they KNOW you are really watching..

We have a chance here, lets not blow it.

Re:Dont rely on viewer count machines

[jmoriarty]

We have a chance here, lets not blow it.

I share your pain, but we have no chance. In geek-speak, it's the Kobayashi Maru, we ain't Kirk.

The Trio channel ran an interesting series of "Brilliant But Cancelled" shows in December. (Including my much lamented favorite, Profit) They also ran a documentary on cancelled TV shows, and talked about Fan campaigns to save shows. The bottom line, straight from the horse's mouth, is that they just won't work. Period. Every case except the original (ST:TOS) where a show has risen from the grave was due to some other force at work. Even the show's producers said "Thanks, but save your energy."

Ratings = $. Letters = recycling.

Accept it

[core plexus]

I know some peole will get their knickers in a twist over this, but here's The Ugly Truth: Everything Dies. Just like the post about the science programme on BBC going off the air after more than 30 years, it has to end sometime. Best advice: Go out with a bang, don't wither and whimper. One more thing: less TV, more life.

Man Gets 70mpg in Homemade Car-Made from a Mainframe Computer

Re:Accept it

[grinwell]

Best advice: Go out with a bang, don't wither and whimper. One more thing: less TV, more life.

Ah, but what if instead of going out with a bang, it goes out with a never-resolved cliffhanger??? That's what Farscape fans despair of.

And one more thing: less good TV, more CRAPPY TV

Re:Accept it

[gwernol]

Everything Dies... Best advice: Go out with a bang, don't wither and whimper. One more thing: less TV, more life.

Agreed, except that Farscape was written to be a five season show. One of the things that makes Farscape so exceptional is that it has a huge story arc running over all five seasons. Killing the show after the end of season four is particularly brutal because the storyline will never be resolved. They only had one season to go.

Re:Accept it

[TrevorB]

Well, seeing as how the show was only supposed to last exactly 5 seasons and no more, and the show ends in a major cliffhanger, fans of the show are a bit bent up about it. In shows where overall story arc matter (as opposed to everything-back-they-way-they-started-when-the-epi sode-started shows), getting the last chapter cut out of your book can be fairly upsetting.

Babylon 5 was in a similar situation. After really struggling out of the blocks and looking like it was going to make it, there were signs on the wall that 4 seasons might indeed be it. JMS tried to wrap things up nicely to end the show after 4 seasons, and then notice that the 5th and final season would go ahead came late in the year. As a consequnce (and IMHO), the 5th season suffered as a consequence, feeling more like an add on set of minor story arcs. But at least there was closure if it only went 4 seasons. Farscape's just going to end mid-stream.

I think some people see this on the scale of New Line Cinema saying that LotR:Return of the King wouldn't air in theatres. (How much importance you place on both of these is a presonal preference)

Re:Accept it

[cheese_wallet]

Ah, but what if instead of going out with a bang, it goes out with a never-resolved cliffhanger??? That's what Farscape fans despair of

I was pretty pissed off about this season's hiatus, what crappy way to do things. And then when I heard the show was cancelled, that bugged me too, but it's been so long since I've seen an episode that I don't really care any more.

I actually thought I missed the first of these last 11 episodes last friday, and I was only mildly put off. btw, the sci fi website still says it'll be on at 10pm eastern, instead of the actual 8pm. go figure.

Re:Accept it

[core plexus]

Your anger is directed at everyone and everything that you have no control or influence over. Me, the moderators, the gang at farscape and the sci-fi channel, your mother, and who-know-who-else. You know what's bleeding obvious?

IT'S A TELEVISION SHOW. Turn off the TV and go outside and play with your friends, or make some new ones. You'll either get over it, or die.

Re:Accept it

[plastik55]

What, so you had to be watching from season one to appreciate the grand story arc? What a great way to kill a show's potential ratings.

Re:Accept it

[Rob Parkhill]

Aaarrrgh! Anyone remember "Earth 2"? The first season ended with quite the cliff-hanger. Then there was no second season.

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

If you get your culture from TV then I can't really help you.

Re:Claudia black is hot

[Ribo99]

She's only 29. At least according to IMDB.

I agree with your appraisal of her cuteness though ;) Plus she's a damn fine actress. If you have a chance you should check out the Farscape episode The Way We Weren't, one of my faves. She's spectactular in it.

Amazing

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So they're hoping and praying for Farscape to pull in a 2 rating? Astounding. Firefly consistently drew around a 2.4, and yet Fux dropped it faster than... a... um... fast dropping thing.

Sorry. I'm having a figurative language problem today. I can do personification and synecdoche, but I can't pull off metaphor or simile. It's like....

Re: Amazing

[Black Parrot]

> Fox thinks it's a real network, and holds the bar a little bit higher than an offbeat cable network like SciFi. The WB would've killed for Firefly's ratings, but Fox needs a bigger pull...

Fox mismanaged Firefly so badly that it's hard not to believe some influential exec wanted it to die. They started by running ads that grossly misrepresented the nature of the program, then they decided not to bother showing the pilot, then, right about the time people's new-season watching habits were starting to solidify they bumped it two weeks in a row for some really crappy Thanksgiving specials, and finally, after announcing that they were going to do a media blitz to try to bump up the ratings when it started showing again, they hardly bothered advertising for it on their own station, let alone any kind of "media blitz".

The only surprise is that anyone bothered watching it regularly at all. More's the shame, because it really was a good show -- but you did have to tune it in regularly and learn a bit about the characters in order to appreciate it.

Re:Amazing

[glwtta]

I don't necessarily know much about these things, but a 2 on cable (scifi) is a lot better than a 2.4 on a network such as Fox. They just don't see that many viewers on basic cable. At least that's how I understand these things.

Re: Amazing

[msobkow]

I watched every episode they aired, hoping beyond hope that it would turn into something worthwhile. The only ep that was actually good was the one where the captain was being tortured by the old geezer pissed off by an incomplete contract a couple episodes before.

Hearing that Firefly was cancelled was the first time I thought there might actually be some functioning brain cells in TV executive land.

Farscape will not be renewed and here's why

[loggia]

USA Networks (which owns channels like Sci-Fi and USA) is following the current trend of "own your own shows and make more money."

USA Networks does not own Farscape.

USA would rather pump out garbage like Tremors: The Series, The Dream Team with Anna and Michael and other crap... because they own it and would reap the windfall if the shows become syndicated later on.

Now I did not say this plan makes sense. It doesn't. Disney has tried this with ABC and fallen to the bottom of the ratings heap. Far to the bottom. So much so that they are losing a tremendous amount of money on ABC. How is this better than working with a variety of production companies to create hits and making money the old way? It isn't.

But that is the current wisdom.

Also, USA Networks thinks showing the same programs on USA and Sci-Fi is a good idea and so is showing cheap black-and-white shows that get low ratings.

This is "smart."

Re:Farscape will not be renewed and here's why

[geekoid]

Actually, they cut it so they could run Takken.

Re:Farscape will not be renewed and here's why

[zerocool^]

Disney has tried this with ABC and fallen to the bottom of the ratings heap.

Bullshit. ABC = sports. ESPN = also owned by ABC/Disney. If you don't think that makes them all the money they want, you're sorely mistaken. I get 4 (FOUR) espn channels 24/7 (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN classic, ESPNews). Not counting the Pay Per View stuff (NCAA football, basketball, NFL sunday ticket, NHL center ice, MLB extra innings, etc).

Add to that all of the sports events that are on ABC (lots of college and NFL football games, national championships, etc) and ABC makes plenty of money. All the extra crap (what is it now, 12 secrets to dating my daughter, who also happens to be the celebrity mole) is crap, but I imagine they made an equal amount of money on the Miami-OSU game as they did on all their programming for the rest of the week combined.

Don't cry for ABC. Their ratings are fine.

~Wx

Re:What about

[DAldredge]

No. People like Farscape because they did too many drugs while watching the Muppet Show.

Re:What about

[Twirlip of the Mists]

How many homeless shelters have you visited this week, Evil Adrian? How many meals have you given out?

Look, at least I'm honest about it. Generally speaking, I don't spend a whole lot of time worrying about other people. Neither do you. The difference is that I admit it freely, while you seem to be ashamed of the fact.

Re:Why save it?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Because Farscape just happens to be THE BEST SCI-FI show ever created!"

No, Doctor Who was the best Scifi show ever created.

Efforts to get that show played on Scifi-Channel would be better rewarded. 25+ years of eps without the derivitive dribble.

Label me a troll if you like, but there's a reason that Farscape's being canned. There's an even better reason why DrW went on for so long.

Nielsons ratings

[Ragetech]

I'm so pissed... I got called to record my viewing habits for a week for the Nielson ratings, but my week I'm supposed to "diary" what I watch is from last Thursday until this coming Thursday. I was kind of hoping to be able to record the new Farscape episode -- at least I got to put a blip on for last Friday's repeats, but...

Farscape is the only show I've watched, in the past five years, that I've followed religiously. It's hard to explain it to anyone how much you can get into it, but it was sooo well done; it's cancellation by SciFi really made me loose interest in T.V. -- besides The Simpsons, what shows are out there that are long lasting?

My girlfriend's Japanese, and she was telling me of this soap she used to watch that her father watches, that was on for literally 20 years. Unfortunatly, the tv execs don't invest in shows that much here. They want quick, easy cash... and eventually it's going to hurt them.

Ok, I'm rabling... go Farscape!

A Nielsen Point...

[geddes]

A Nielsen point is the percentage of televisions in the US that tuned into the show. So a 2 would mean that 2% of the households with televisions in the united states (or roughly 2 million televisions) had tuned into the show. (More information at the Nielsen FAQ.

For reference, the most popular TV show last week was CSI, followed by Monday Night football. CSI got 13 points, Monday Night Football 11 (data here). So though a 2 isn't blockbuster (the lowest scoring show in the top twenty got a 6), it is still impressive. I don't know if farscape can do it.

Re:A Nielsen Point...

[gwernol]

For reference, the most popular TV show last week was CSI, followed by Monday Night football. CSI got 13 points, Monday Night Football 11 (data here [yahoo.com]). So though a 2 isn't blockbuster (the lowest scoring show in the top twenty got a 6), it is still impressive. I don't know if farscape can do it.

For further reference, take a look at this page which shows the Nielsen ratings for all four seasons of Farscape. For season 4 it was averaging around a 1.4, so getting up to a 2.0 is not a huge leap, but it is some work.

Priorities first.

[Anonvmous Coward]

Futurama.

Re:Priorities first.

[NanoGator]

"Priorities first."
"Futurama."

My kingdom for a mod point.

Re:Priorities first.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Some people, like me, would say that Farscape is a higher priority than Futurama."

I doubt it. Arguably, Farscape is a much more acquired taste than Futurama. It also is not on Fox's Sunday night lineup.

"Seems to me that if all the sets have been destroyed, there's little hope of bringing the show back..."

Hmm. Maybe. Remember the Back to the Future Trilogy? They rebuilt the sets for each movie and nobody could really tell the difference. They could rebuild just fine. They'd even be able to make up a creative reason for changes they couldn't recreate.

Thinking a little more about what you said, it occurs to me that the cost of rebuilding those sets could potentially drive the show into the red. Yeah... I see your point. The good news is that the sets can be rebuilt, the bad news is that they're budget driven and that could be a devastating blow.

Ouch.

Good thing Futurama's animated and doesn't have any sets. ;)

Check ad viewing

[Gorimek]

In that case they could also check who zaps through the commercials on the Tivo, and just don't count them for the ratings.

If I ran a network or was a customer of one, I would definitely want that info.

Re:Why save it?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Snob. Everything around you comprises your culture. The Bible, Shakespeare, and Milton are culture, but so are "I Love Lucy," Titanic, and Nirvana.

The sets have been destroyed.

[fava]

Not taken down and put into storage but destroyed with chainsaws and taken to the dump. Rebuilding all the sets would be very expensive, the ratings would have to be very good to justify it.

Re:The sets have been destroyed.

[Deffexor]

Actually, Ben Browder (and I think even David Kemper) said himself that the sets were falling apart after 4 seasons and that re-building them from scratch would have been cheaper and faster than trying to salvage them.

Though I agree that they are going to have to pull consistent 2s or higher in the Nielsen ratings to get this series saved. Anyway, I'll be watching. Too bad I don't have a Nielsen box. :(

Re:The sets have been destroyed.

[fava]

I dont even get the sci-fi channel so I cant effect the ratings even if I had a Nielson box. I discovered farscape about a month ago and am watching with the help of the p2p networks.

Yes, save Farscape!

[Scrameustache]

I don't watch it (mostly because the theme song is about as sweet to my ears as the sound of a cat sliding down a blackboard), but save Farscape, and then save Firefly , wich I do like : )

pleaaaase!

Re:Yes, save Farscape!

[amuro98]

Firefly was doomed from the start.

It aired Friday nights during that awkward summer/fall transition when everyone's either on vacation, or getting re-integrated into school life (eg. parties.)

Fox didn't air the pilot movie which explained who everyone was and what was going on, but instead aired that horrendous episode about the train robbery, which was easily the *worst* episode of the season. I'd heard the pilot movie was supposed to have aired back in December around Christmas (which would have been another brilliant move by Fox...)

Oh yeah, and don't forget about the baseball playoffs, which knocked out a few episodes, depending on where you happen to live.

Officially, Fox says the show is on hiatus until they find a new timeslot for it, but I don't think anyone here would be surprised if Firefly never came back.

Re:Yes, save Farscape!

[startled]

"I don't watch it (mostly because the theme song is about as sweet to my ears as the sound of a cat sliding down a blackboard), but save Farscape, and then save Firefly , wich I do like : )"

Firefly totally shocked me by being excellent. I was expecting a show I might tolerate on occasion if I was really, really desparate. Instead, I got a show that was innovative and polished. Filming techniques and plot structures in many of the episodes were strikingly different from the same old crap pumped out night after night all over TV.

Firefly stands as a great show in its own right, not just as a good sci fi show. It's really unfortunate it got canned-- it'll probably open another slot for some shitty CSI ripoff.

Never mind Farscape, save Firefly!

[jefp]

Far superior program.

The Guiding Light premeired, on radio. . .

[kfg]

in 1937. It's still going strong on television.

Maybe you just need to take up watching soaps?

KFG

Re:Why save it?

[entrylevel]

I wouldn't go so far as to say BEST.SCIFI.SHOW.EVER, although how people can compare it to SG-1 is beyond me. "Powering up 100 percent! Captain. sir. Ti'lk, are you OK?" WTF?! Apparently it translates badly from the original whatever-the-hell-language it was originally dubbed in. My loss I guess. (I also don't care much for Anime.)

I much prefer dialog like "You have knowledge of time and the ability unravel events. I should kill you just for that." Does anyone remember that episode? In one scene Crichton gets thrown back to the first day he set foot on Moya, everyone except him is acting exactly the same, with the same camera footage and everything, but he reacts to everything differently. Just when you've had enough of the scene, he turns around, points to the back of his neck, mutters "tongue.", and Dargo wallops him in the back of his neck with his tongue. Then it cuts back to him face down on the island in the void with the Ancient. I thought that was some creative shit. Anyway...

If Farscape goes off the air I think it will be a loss. I'm no Farscape zealot (I'm lots of things, not just Farscape!), but if the SciFi channel cancels it only to replace it with Braveheart (I like the movie and all, but how is it SciFi?) and the X-Files (hello, I saw every good episode 6 times!), they will have just confused away another dedicated viewer. I won't boycott SciFi just for cancelling a cool (IMHO) show, but I can't watch channels whose programming choices give me a headache just trying to comprehend them.

Anyway, I'll watch all the new episodes when they air, or I'll tape them if I'm out. I truly hope anyone who enjoys the show even a little will do the same.

(On a side note: does anyone think Neilsen boxes actually exist (anymore)? Wouldn't it be easier to just put some kind of chip in the TV. I dunno, maybe call it a "V-Chip"?)

No hope

[grinwell]

SCIFI has no intention of renewing Farscape. The 2.0 would not only exceed any of Farscape's ratings so far, but would be the highest of any SCIFI series (except the "Taken" miniseries).

Someone even Graphed the Ratings

Re:Why save it?

[Evil Adrian]

It's not snobbish; just because something is a part of our culture doesn't make it good for the culture. Drugs would be a good example. So would the "everybody for themselves" mentality. Among other things.

Save Enterprise!

[yobbo]

Oh wait it hasn't been cancelled... yet.

Re:Save Enterprise!

[spanky1]

Are you serious? Enterprise kicks ass! This is the first Star Trek series that I have gotten really into the first season. TNG and Voyager took me until the second season. DS9 I never really liked.

Re:Save Enterprise!

[nutshell42]

Considered how successful most of the "Save ..." campaigns are that could be just what we need to get rid of that uninspired junk. (no matter how much you like it, even the biggest fan couldn't call the Enterprise storylines "innovative")

Now we only have to start a petition against the cancellation and it's as good as dead =)

Re:Save Enterprise!

[Slashamatic]

I wouldn't cancel Enterprise yet. It isn't so bad (better than a lot of Voyager, for example). But I wouldn't want to see it go past three series, I agree with you that Trek needs a long rest with maybe an occasional movie, but that is all.

Regrettably, Trek has become very much a formulaic "Milch Kuh" (Milk-cow) for the producers and it is clearly running dry. The producers have a way of doing things that permeates through down to the writers and the actors. Both may change, but unless the producers change, the show stays very much the same. B5 and Farscape have been more interesting for the viewers, and both were made on a very much smaller budget.

Re:Why save it?

[robson]

"kill your television" and live life to its fullest

Yeah, we know what you think, Jonathan... :)

Re:Why save it?

[Patrick13]

At least you can get Farscape Episodes on DVD.

Or P2P them, but I suppose, that isn't really helping them out very much!

"Dragon Fighter" wasn't worth watching

[msobkow]

The overuse of multi-camera framing, weak plot, poor scripting, and general "made for video" feel of "Dragon Fighter" left me surfing after I'd suffered through the first hour. Whoever did the edits wasn't qualified to cut a home movie, much less a feature-length flick. (All they needed to complete the home-edit feel is have the camera constantly zooming in and out. Never give your parents a camera with zoom capability!)

Unfortunately, that is the kind of drek that SciFi pumps out now. Schlock horror that isn't even worth a video rental.

you hit it on the head

[Lumpy]

To bad the cats don't count in the nielsons ;

If a nielsen family is not watching it, it doesn't matter.

I dont care if 97% of the nation watches and loves it if the 0.5% of the population that is a nielsen metered family is NOT watching it it DIES.

this is why nielsen ratings mean absolutely nothing today. they are numbers that measure very innacurately.

Re:you hit it on the head

[Gaijin42]

uh, you really dont understand statistics do you. a .5% (and I think its much smaller than that actually) RANDOM sample of the entire nation is a very accurate picture of the entire nation.

Re:you hit it on the head

[Lumpy]

please read the other post that answered my parent post.

it is not a RANDOM sampling. and it is horribly skewed. I've seen the data, and compared to what I see and there is Not a random and even sampling.

plus of the 2 nielsen families I knew... skewing is very typical...

"I love this show, I'm telling the box that all 5 of us are here and 2 guests are here"

It's horribly innacurate, because it is a tiny segment of the population.

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

I do own a TV, but I only use it for DVDs.

My cats & the Nielsens

[MacAndrew]

My cats produce better material than these Nielsen households enjoy.

I keep hoping they are not representative of TV viewers as a whole, but statistically I suspect they are.

Where the biggest errors may come in is where advertisers draw lessons from the ratings.

Catch your Nielsens here. Do you agree with the rankings?

Re:My cats & the Nielsens

[satanami69]

My God, it's nothing but football and crime shows!

Do you think maybe the two are related

Re:My cats & the Nielsens

[LMariachi]

Good example of Nielsen stupidity: They count "NFL Monday Showcase" at 9:00PM as a show distinct from "NFL Monday Night Football" at 9:07PM.

(And if you think "Yes Dear" holding the 14 spot is a bad sign for American culture, you must not remember when "Three's Company" was the number one show in the country.)

Re:Uh huh

[Synn]

They should name this the MTV Effect or something.

1> Start something aimed at a specific small market.
2> Get a taste for money.
3> Ignore why you started in the first place and do what everyone else is doing(or actually, do worse stuff to just make a quick buck).

Re:Why save it?

[DevilM]

>I tried that. Then I had to talk to others in >life, and they had a real hard time >understanding anything I was making a point on.
>
You couldn't talk to others because you didn't watch TV?

>So, if you want to live your life fullest with a >small circle of people separated by miles of >land, hey, feel free. Myself, I like to talk to >other about things. I consider social >interaction living life to its fullest.
>
How does not watching TV mean you can't interact socially? I've found there is more time for social interaction when you don't watch TV.

>Yourself? What do you consider living live to >its fullest, apart from TV?
>
There are plenty of interesting and intellectually stimulating activities one can do e.g. read a book, watch a play, discuss your favorite subjects among friends, etc.

Brilliant but ... the Internet

[MacAndrew]

I note that "Brilliant but Canceled" was cancelled. (kidding)

The difference here may be the internet. The fan campaign would not be 1% as coordinated, or powerful in recruitment, without I can't even believe I find myself considering writinga letter or giving money to this cause. (See savefarscape.com.)

It's a long shot, but such are often the best shots. And the past may not be prologue. :)

Here's something they can do for Farscape

[sielwolf]

Stop showing it on Friday night! Contrary to what a lot of folks think, some of us actually go out and do social activity on the Weekends.

And no, Rosie Palms and her five friends doesn't count.

Re:Here's something they can do for Farscape

[finny]

some of us actually go out and do social activity on the Weekends

Whoa! What's that like!?

They Changed The Time Again

[TTMuskrat]

For those who want to keep trying to Save Farscape, here are some things you should know:

• The new "season" (SciFi's words, even though its still Season 4) starts this Friday, Jan. 10th.
• The time has changed AGAIN. It is now being shown at 8PM EST/PST and 7PM CST

I do believe that SciFi changed Farscape's scheduled viewing hour for the second time this season to further cut down on viewership so the suits could point to even lower Nielsen Ratings as a reason for cancellation.

So, for these next 11 Fridays, tune into SciFi channel for 1 hour, Support 'Scape, and then tune in to another station. :)

Re:They Changed The Time Again

[kalidasa]

The time has changed AGAIN. It is now being shown at 8PM EST/PST and 7PM CST I do believe that SciFi changed Farscape's scheduled viewing hour for the second time this season to further cut down on viewership so the suits could point to even lower Nielsen Ratings as a reason for cancellation.

On the other hand, perhaps 8pm is a better time slot. I know I'm more liikely to watch something at that time, and go out at 9.

Re:Claudia black is hot

[Subcarrier]

She is, and we all like women who kick butt, but what about that sexy voice?

OT I hate fox so much OT

[Scrameustache]

Fox didn't air the pilot movie which explained who everyone was and what was going on, but instead aired that horrendous episode about the train robbery, which was easily the *worst* episode of the season. I'd heard the pilot movie was supposed to have aired back in December around Christmas (which would have been another brilliant move by Fox...)

It aired in late december, I watched, it was good.

Officially, Fox says the show is on hiatus until they find a new timeslot for it, but I don't think anyone here would be surprised if Firefly never came back.

Fox is not buying any more episodes, and they aren't airing any of the ones they have in stock...

Go check out fireflysupport.com, they have details.

Re: TV is dying (was Re:Uh huh)

[Black Parrot]

> I still have hope that television can recover from its great creeping miasma, but that hope is waning fast.

I think the broadcast networks are dead and just don't know it yet. (Or maybe they do know it.) Cable has killed them. You're starting to see informercials during prime time, for Christ's sake. And more and more of the remaining programming is the cheap-to-produce "reality" shite, sitcoms, talk shows, "entertainment" programs that are thinly disguised ads for the music and movie industries, etc., with an ever increasing erotic content to entice casual channel flippers to linger for a while.

In 10 years any of the broadcast networks that still exist will be unrecognizable as what you thought "television" meant when you were a kid.

Re:Why save it?

[Jonathan]

Guess what's different about cinema, theater and books compared to TV? A conscious decision to experience some content that interests one. While I suppose it is not impossible to only watch TV shows that interest you (TIVO and the like seem to point to such a future), in general most people I know who watch TV simply turn it on when they get home and passively watch it all evening, perhaps channel surfing to avoid something particularly bad.

Sounds like blackmail to me.

[jabber01]

If the next 11 episodes pull the right numbers sounds an awful lot like Jimmy Swaggart's If my ministry doesn't collect 8 Million dollars... of a few years back.

Are TV execs so soul-less as to decide a show's viability by the number of eyeballs they deliver to advertizers, without so much as a moment's consideration for the inherent quality of the show itself? Oh whom am I kidding? Of course. The bastards!

How many avid fans of Shakespeare are there? Of opera and theater in general? Of reading classic books? Even of reading pulp instead of watching soap operas?

It's clear that "Good Taste" is the trait of the minority. Yet, it is utterly shameful that we live in an age where economies of scale and advertizing dollars are the sole drivers of the success of entertainment.

Why must good entertainment be relegated to the relatively well off, and sustained by charitable contributions of the wealthy, while the tripe is sold by the bucket, paid for by people looking to take as much money as possible from anyone gullible enough to not change the channel or walk away every 8 minutes?

Bah! Ok, I'm done. Who's next on the soap-box?

Re:Sounds like blackmail to me.

[Duds]

True and in essence I agree with you.

The problem is that farscape costs a butt load to make. Someone has to pay for that, if it's not on HBO or something it's got to be the viewer via ads.

And the advertisers will only pay if the people who buy stuff are watching.

tivo doesn't report stats?

[Narcocide]

i thought tivo *DID* report anonymous viewing stats? does anyone know for sure?

Neilson

[Cyno01]

My hosue got a Neilson survey, i was to late to save Firefly, but i tried my hardest for Farscape along with some other great shows.

Re:Why save it?

[Patrick13]

At their best, plays, operas, movies, television, games, etc. provide a contrived social construct in which human relations may be formed...TV is particularly open to such abuse because it is so easily a solitary activity.

uhh. I think you forgot that they are also entertainment! Anyhow, according to your definition, the invention of the book must be the very worst of these forms, because outside of "Story Hour" in your local public library, it is most definitely a solitary activity... Imagine a couple, not having anything else in common except a book they both read, and (gasp) discussing it.

The Chronicle and SciFi

[DevilsEngine]

A very similar thing happened with The Chronicle. Though the show had not been on for as long as Farscape, it developed quite good ratings for SciFi. In weeks where new episodes aired, it was (with a couple of exceptions) the top show on the network. Then it was moved around, stuck on hiatus, brought back in fits and spurts, and finally strangled after a single season. The constant changes to the schedule and the lack of support for any program has effectively destroyed SciFi's ratings. When it started, The Chronicle pulled in over 2 ratings. Ratings in that range were a given for new episodes of Farscape just a year or two back. But as fans have learned that they can't trust SciFi, they've stopped watching. Why get invested in a series when a single season of episodes will be spread over a year or halted without warning? Science Fiction fans are more loyal than any other viewers on television, yet the SciFi Channel has managed to send them running in droves. SciFi is an perfect example of management to the point of destruction.

Re:Farscape Category?

[evilviper]

Could be... I may have just mixed-up 2 and 3. I'd have to go back and watch the old episodes to be sure where it stopped being interesting, and turned into a soap opera in space when everyone does nothing but bitch and moan at each other.

Re:Why save it?

[entrylevel]

That's why I said "Anyone remember that episode?" Complex shows don't make much sense out of context. Whereas a simple show like, say, 7th Heaven, or, uhm, SG-1, make perfect sense with very little context. "Powering up! 100%!" See?

Basically what I was describing was a very adept and unsual portrayal of time travel involving excellent writing, good acting, and awesome cinematography, using footage from the pilot episode.

Otherwise, LOL and all that.

USA Networks...

[Obiwan Kenobi]

Also brings us The Dead Zone, simply be best sci fi show to come out in a long time.

The supernatural element is mixed perfectly with existing conflicts (ie, his relationship to his ex-girlfriend, his new found fame) and the first season was simply one of the best sustained-quality tv series I've seen in awhile. Now we get a big second season arc, dealing with the presidential canidate that's going to bring Armaggedon, on top of his now nationally renowned notoriety, has made for a fine season opener and promise of greater things to come.

I'll admit they've made some serious crap before, but between That Other Great USA Show, Monk (if you don't like it you haven't seen it), and the fantastic Dead Zone, I do believe that USA doesn't get it wrong all of the time.

Re:What about

[RockyJSquirel]

Your kind of attitude is what makes the world a shitty place to live in.

You are worthless.

Hmm. This is an example of the sort of attitude that that makes the world wonderful?

I'm not sure if we need a:
"+1 Unintentionally Funny"
mod
or a
"-1 No Clue at all"
mod.

Though to tell the truth, I find your own narrow minded self rightious hostility more depressing than funny.

Rocky J. Squirrel

Re:What about

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Hee hee. Good one, Rocky.

Re:Why save it?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"God, I could never bring myself to watch more than 15 minutes of Dr. Who (or as I call it, Dr Snooze, best solution for isomnia)."

Farscape == Fartscrape

Brilliant but cancelled

[CleverNickName]

I've heard of this other show that was brought back because of fan reaction and lobbying.

Some Sci-Fi show from the 60s.

Ordinarily, studios just don't listen to audiences, as counter intuitive as that seems, especially today, when most studios are just arms of a gigantic multi-national corporation (that's controlled by the Gnomes of Zurich with help from the girl scouts and the orbital mind control lasers)

Re:Brilliant but cancelled

[Rogerborg]

Uh, but That 60's Show did actually get canned, and it took ten years for the ashes to be raked over. Similarly, I don't see networks missing Farscape until it's gone.

But what do I know? Or rather, without a Neilsen box, what do the networks care what my opinion is?

Re:Why save it?

[Patrick13]

The obvious solution is that the SAVE FARSCAPE campaign needs to recruit the Raelians, that way they can make clones of the fans, and therefore increase the audience base.

Re:Why save it?

[blincoln]

25+ years of eps without the derivitive dribble.

I liked the Dr. Who of the 80s, back when I used to watch more TV.

When I was going to school up in Canada, the Sci-Fi network equivalent up there (Space?) started running the series from the beginning. It was a huge mistake, because the early B&W episodes are basically uninteresting to most viewers of today. I didn't dislike them, but OTOH most of the stories would now be compressed into five minutes or less of episode time.

Ratings were so poor that they never ran the newer (more interesting, IMO) episodes while I was up there.

Long running shows

[Duds]

They're far more common in terms of factual shows, for instance the previously mentioned "tomorrows world" after well over 30. But there's a few here in the UK, possibly because it's very common for shows to skip years. (partly because there's usually 6-8 in a season).

For instance Red Dwarf has been around since 1988 but there's only been 8 seasons and 52 episodes. There's a film and a 9th being written, refreshingly, these will be shown "when they're ready".

I think a model like this could maybe save shows like Farscape, especially in a situation like this where you'll be rebuilding most of it anyway. Take a year or two off and return with a new and final season in 2004/5.

Re:TV is dying (was Re:Uh huh)

[mpe]

I'm honestly surprised that Andromeda hasn't been canceled yet.

Isn't losing all of the original writers being cancelled by another name...

Well said

[Rogerborg]

Every time I see Angry Young Geeks declaiming that they'll do X or Y or Z to keep their favourite show on the air, I have to wonder why they don't understand that if you aren't in the Neilsen sample, nobody cares.

And why should they care? So you're an avid watcher of the show. Does that mean you're an avid watcher of the commercials?. No, so they don't care. You could try writing to them and telling them that you make >$100K and you watch all the commercials, but to what effect? They already know how many people with what income watch the show. All you're doing is identifying yourself, you're not altering the figures on which their decision will be made.

Fan protests and letter campaigns are a waste of time, as is campaigning to other fans, or even to the general public. What you need to do is to find Neilsen households, and persuade them to watch. I wonder how many Neilsen households understand just how powerful they are. In fact, I wonder how many corporations are covertly tracking them down (one way or another) and targetting them right now to skew the figures.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[Overt Coward]

you got Erin right

Actually, no. I think it's spelled "Aeyrn".

Re:Why save it?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

How often do you read the bible?

How much of it are you familiar with? Do you know the stories of Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham and Isaac, Noah, Job, the birth and death of Jesus, the life of St. Paul? For a book that we're only exposed to for "trivial amounts of time," it sure is universally known, huh?

It's invalid to criticise this aspect of life because it's an aspect of life.

Not exactly, but close. I'm saying that it's invalid to criticize television on grounds that it is not a legitimate part of our culture.

Maintaining a sharp and healthy mind is a proactive task. Television is like eating twinkies.

Bah. Television is what you make of it. You can sit and watch passively, or you can consider and reflect and discuss just as with any other medium. And, of course, the occasional twinkie never hurt anybody. All things in moderation.

Re:Why save it?

[vrmlguy]

It kind of reminds me of the end of Northern Exposure.

Sorry, but the cancelation of Nothern Exposure was a mercy killing. I loved Northern Exposure but once Joel left...

The show tried to keep going, but its heart was gone. Hell, Joel's leaving was the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. Northern Exposure was a sophisticated remake of Green Acres. Yes, really!!! Joel was Oliver Douglas, an everyman who found himself in a weird, off-kilter world. So how did the character get written out? By becoming the weirdiest, most off-kilter character ever seen! It was a betrayal of everything that his character stood for. I continued to watch for a while, but gave up before the last episode ran.

Re:Why save it?

[Slashamatic]

You make an excellent point. The BBC had ocassional gems and DW was one of them. It was always on a low budget but many of the actors were so good that you could forget the cardboard scenery flapping around.

I would add that a long term series such as Dr Who is special but some very good shows cames out of British commercial terrestrial television, particularly Channel 4. One point is that the British show commercial televison interrupted by adverts rather than the other way round. The ads pay the bills but there seems to be less pressure to artificially rig plots to prevent channel hopping during the ads. This seems to result in a better show, whatever it it is.

As for your last point about '500 channels of mainstream crap' - I wholeheatedly agree. The shole poiunt of cable is that it was suposed to allow niche channels. Even Sci-Fi seems to be trying to move away from science fiction or even fantasy to concentrate on stuff like "Crossing Over".

Farscape owes a lot of what it is from Dr Who and Blakes 7. It is not a rip off,

Re:I have a Nielsens Box in my home..

[bill_mcgonigle]

Probably not if you're not a Sci-Fi/Space show fan. If you are, you might consider that Farscape is the only Sci-Fi/Space show that isn't about a military crew. Quite the opposite, they're all escaped prisoners. The military folk (called PeaceKeepers) are the bad guys. The heroes are on the run from them. So, if you consider that there may be more ways to experience space than through the military, it's can be a fun show.

The problem that has befallen Farscape is that they're not very good about letting go of old characters. The big-bad from the second (third?) season, called Scorpious, is now living on the ship. This is the kind of guy most nuns would behead and who has tortured several of the crew. But the actor is pretty good, and his costume is creepy, so they kept him. They've invented excuses for why, but it's all contrived.

Additionally, the basic premise of the show is that John needs to get back to Earth. However, they've thrown just one or two episodes a season at the problem, only recently focusing on it (after it was too later). It's like the writers were afraid they wouldn't be able to come up with anything to prolong that plot line (main story arc - insert flashing red lights) so they avoided it.

Still, the show does come up with some real gems a few times a season, and has been known to display exceptional imagination and to not be afraid to experiment with the craft of TV shows (e.g. the cartoon episode). It's much better to see someone trying hard and occasionally failing than to see them playing out cookie-cutter plots and never succeeding.

But, hey, I'd be happy if John's caught a wormhole that wound up activating the Gate in the SGC.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[lugonn]

I'm trying to sum up all my Moonlighting memories from when I was 13 (season 3-4). The last thing I remember was David and Maddie arguing at Maddie's house, and David walking out on her and the show was over. I was like, "what the hell...that's it!" That made no sense. Why'd he leave?

That's exactly how I felt when Erin took off and left John stuck in space with no gas. She should just be happy there is still a John clone, or was he the real John. I thought they were the same. Who knows. Bring back the hot nymph with the white makeup, and shave the vegetable chicks head please (or was I hallucinating hair, can't remember).

"Blue Moon Detective Agency. Whenever there's trouble, we're there on the double!"

Wow, this whole posts made almost no sense...cool.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[lugonn]

They've had sex already, more than once, IIRC.

I see IIRC a lot, what does it mean.

Erin should get over it. The doubles were the same person. Drama I guess.

They should bring the wormholes, Tallon, Craise, and Scorpious back. That'd get the show on track again.

Re:I have no Cable, were do I send the Tabasco?

[lugonn]

This is the kind of thing Farscape fans should be saved from

Exactly! This is what I was reffering to with the whole reference to Moonlighting and Roswell. Both shows started out with great promise, then sputtered and died becuase the characters got muddled in emotional battles.

What made the shows so great was how the characters reacted in extrodinary circumstances. Then the shows focused on their personal issues, and all the action and excitment went down the crapper and the shows become soap operas.

They still show Moonlighting on Cable here in the states. It's on a 'for women' channel called Lifetime. Apparently, cable operators think the show only appealed to women, but really only the last 2 1/2 seasons did. Alas, since I have no Cable...I must stare at my Cybil Shepard poster.